Appeal No. 1997-0327 Page 5
Application No. 08/204,150
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
As correctly pointed out by appellants (brief, pages 5
and 6), the examiner has not convincingly explained where the
applied Hoeffkes reference teaches both an anionic surfactant
and an alkyl glycoside used together in their composition, let
alone in the relative amounts claimed herein together with the
other components as required by all of the claims on appeal.
On the matter of the composition of Example 3, we agree with
appellants' position and explanations offered in the reply
brief (page 3) and the main brief (page 5).
Having realized the futility of maintaining the
unsupported position that Example 3 of Hoeffkes discloses both
of the aforementioned anionic surfactant and alkyl glycoside
components being used together in a composition as claimed
herein (supplemental answer, page 3) , the examiner, 2
nevertheless, maintains the stated rejection. In this regard,
2We note that the examiner inexplicably maintained this
position in the stated rejection in the answer (page 4) while
at page 5 of the same answer expressing agreement with
appellants' position that Hoeffkes' Example 3 did not disclose
an anionic surfactant, a component of the herein claimed
composition.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007